Cégétiste sympa

Magnifique rendu ..!

Un pléonasme ! ;o)

J'aime bien les cégétiste moi ! Sauf les dockers qui m'ont envoyé aux urgences alors que je filmais (pour le boulot) une manifestation au Havre. Le premier ko de ma vie. Le secrétaire général du syndicat des dockers m'a téléphoné pour s'excuser. Après ça, j'ai obtenu toutes les autorisations que je voulais pour tourner sur le port où il fallait en plus de l'autorisation du port autonome, celle du syndicat. Un mal pour un bien ;-)))

Il s’est mis une fausse barbe et une fausse moustache !!!

J'ai eu un doute, j'ai agrandi, c'est bien à lui !

Rémy : We've been everything: separatists, supporters of independantists, sovereignists, sovereignity-associanists...

Pierre : At first, we were existentialists.

Dominique : We read Sartre and Camus.

Claude : Then Fanon, we became anti-colonialists.

Rémy : We read Marcuse and became Marxists.

Pierre : Marxist-Leninists.

Alessandro : Trotskyists.

Diane : Maoists.

Rémy : After Solzhenitsyn we changed, we became structuralists.

Pierre : Situationists.

Dominique : Feminists.

Claude : Deconstructionists.

Pierre : Is there an -ism we haven't worshipped?

Claude : Cretinism.

The Barbarian Invasions (2003)

So the whole capitalist world? It's a sure-fire way to commit suicide, as we see more and more every day.

It has a point what you are saying, but I am not very sure the examples of surviving socialist systems are any better. And also, after my experience of socialist reality I would take the risks of capitalism any time of the day.

Capitalism is based on the profit of the few at the expense of the many (a few dozen people own the wealth of half of humanity). Producing more and more is not sustainable in the long run.
A true socialist system should be created (which has never existed) since we live in a society while keeping the individual freedoms of each person. Man must not be a wolf or a sheep.

Thank you for enlighting me with a theory, it's always good to repeat after the time. But just as you say, the real socialism has never been put into practice - it's not really any experience to compare just our preferences for dreams. You have every right for yours, unless you try pushing it Soviet or Chinese communist way.

It's the year of my birth when these pictures were taken, and it is also one of Chairman Mao's demise. How far your dreams came true, and is has the world become better or worse since?

The USSR no longer exists, China has become capitalist-communist... The world has changed, it is not better, it is not worse, other problems have come.
To be clear, I am as much anti-capitalist as I am anti-Marxist or Maoist.

After a time of excess, I think the Cuban revolution could have succeeded if the Americans had not imposed a long boycott. The Cubans had to turn to the USSR, not much choice, and that was the end of the dream.

I perfectly understand what are you talking about. And also, it is very rightful to criticise the capitalism for. If there's to be a perfect socialist system in the future I believe the society need to walk some way. I would however not quite agree with the Cuban as a best practice. First it is the Maoist-Leninist way of grabbing power, by a revolution and then to suppress opposition by jailing all that disagree. This always backfires, and while they may explain that the outer situation was not giving much choice, at last it was a disaster, and the citizens actually chose to live capitalist life. How about to run a pilot free elections in Cuba and in China, would the left wing gain the majority?

It is important to understand that the purpose of a revolution is to replace a system that is often monarchical or colonial in nature, and there are bound to be excesses at the start. We are well placed in France to know this, the guillotine had no time to cool down after 1789!

I don't know what the Chinese think but Castro and Che Guevara are still very popular in Cuba. It would just be necessary for the current government to relax individual freedoms. I am sure that the "democratic" countries could then renew good relations with this country.

There's a black humour that shows a point, that after a revolution the main figures should be executed, so the development could be achieved. Indeed, Che Guevara at least went to do revolution elsewhere, so I am not to judge his other achievements or mistakes for Cuba, apart of being the revolution's leading face. Fidel, on contrary, moved from revolutionary to the lifelong totalitarian leader (surely you see some of the difference from the "evil" French democracy.)

The question, which was theoretical, cannot be answered objectively but none of the two could be nominated - probably only leader of a country which is already dead is in the DPRK, another candidate of an alternative political system. Unfortunately a very depressive choice. Perhaps we might thrash commies to the thrash, and explore some other candidates to the western capitalist democracies, for example - Bhutan with enlightened totalitarian leader/king or Singapore as a electronic totalitarian konfucian welfare capitalist state?

I haven't read much Marx, it's very boring, but he never foresaw leaders for life! In a dictatorship (I hate that word) of the proletariat, it is the people who have the power by definition. That's why I say that communism never existed.

There have been zillions of jokes about the communism, I noticed during the socialist Czechoslovakia. The most ironic was about the discussion in Yerevan radio, whether there will be money in the communism. The final answer was - there will be money - at someone's pocket - while others will have none.

This sadly documents the reality and awakening from the "building" of a communist, or even a socialist dream. I am very sceptical about any society to be able to suppress their individual egoisms for the good for all. There are always individuals that corrupt the system and goodness turns out to be a naivity, even a stupidity.

See, how the post communist societies are actually still affected by being traumatised for decades, while people in countries that have gone through a stable development are much more open to build a country where the minorities have much more distinguished position.

All powers corrupt people, even if they are democratically elected.When it is not for their personal interest, it is for the interest of financiers, industrialists, etc. Nice promises before and not much after... People are always disappointed, so they change their minds at the next election and it starts all over again. That's why the real problems don't progress much.

And the real problem for the coming years is the climate. Not only for the little birds and bees, but when tens, hundreds of millions of people are forced to flee their countries, where will they go? To the "rich" countries of course, where the grass is more green, and our current worries will seem very small.

If you see mistakes or bad sentences in my comments, it's Deepl who works badly (my English is too weak!)
:-))))

Well, the Deepl works fine, much better than his bigger brother.

We might blame the capitalists for destruction of the planet... however the development of USSR or China or any other socialist state came with huge cost on the environment, too. We should be careful in connecting the political system and environmentalism because we can discover actually that Nazis were very active in protecting the nature, setting up natural reserves etc etc

A l'époque les syndicats avaient encore une certaine audience....

Et le PCF faisait entre 20 et 23% aux élections !
Certains doivent en rêver encore...

Un hirsute à la trombine amicale.

a nice portrait